On Saturday 27 July 2002 05:10 pm, you wrote: > > The odd thing is that for the most part, I have yet to find a real > > justification for the cash in terms of productivity that was not achieved > > with the release of Windows 95 and its corresponding office suite. > > Windows 98 and 2K have achieved little more than an incremental resistance to crashes and have driven many upgrades and redos in the office in order to keep things moving. > > The argument that windows crashes often is no longer a valid argument. > Win95 crashed often. Win98 crashed less often, but ate your disk more > often. However, winNT/2000/XP don't crash when configured properly. > Win2000 was the first usable system of these. My first windows 2000 system > went well over a year without a single crash.
My point was that the appware functionality I needed was there in '95, the OS just wasn't able to run stably enough to keep me happy. Combine that with the other problems I mentioned and that's where my dissatisfaction stems from. I agree that win 2K is a pretty stable OS. I haven't had very many crashes with it since it was installed at my work. Most of the trouble I have had at work are network problems, although I have seen a two or three strange error messages that no none seems to have heard of. In short, Win 2K is reliable enough to do what I need it to do. It also strikes me as odd that a company with as much knowledge power as M$ has couldn't get the OS fixed sooner. OK enough on this rant... Cheers, Ben
